item_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'view' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the output includes all on-sale items or is truncated. The phrase 'API 直签' is unclear and adds no concrete behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It avoids verbosity, but it is perhaps too terse, missing opportunities to add value within the same length. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the resource scope, but it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs alternatives) and does not explain the behavior of the limit parameter or possible response characteristics. The output schema may cover return values, so the description's remaining gap is in usage guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has one parameter (limit) with a default of 50, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema alone. This is a clear gap that the description should have filled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb '查看' (view) and the resource '当前账号的在售商品' (current account's on-sale products), which precisely identifies this as a list operation. It distinguishes from siblings like item_get (single item) and search_items (search) by focusing on the current account's active listings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_items or item_view. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.